Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for free access to the SAGE eReference platform!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McGuigan, K.A.
Right arrow Articles by Bell, R.M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McGuigan, K.A.
Right arrow Articles by Bell, R.M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 21, No. 5, 554-567 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9702100502

Adjusting for Attrition in School-Based Samples

Bias, Precision, and Cost Trade-Offs of Three Methods

K.A. McGuigan

RAND

P.L. Ellickson

RAND

R.D. Hays

RAND

R.M. Bell

RAND

Attrition in longitudinal studies can introduce nonresponse bias when estimating parameters. Methods to correct for nonresponse include survey-based approaches (tracking) as well as analytically based methods (weighting, sample selection modeling). Using data from a multi- wave school-based study of adolescents, substance use estimates are compared across methods. Methods are validated by simulating effects of attrition at baseline, and the relative efficiency of each approach with respect to a known "gold standard" is calculated. Results indicate that weighting may provide sufficient adjustment for nonresponse in other, similar studies. Sample selection modeling requires assumptions that are not met in this setting, and severe bias results. The high costs associated with full tracking efforts may be avoidable, as here we find that tracking was an inefficient approach for bias reduction.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval RevHome page
S. McConnell, E. A. Stuart, and B. Devaney
The Truncation-by-Death Problem: What To Do in an Experimental Evaluation When the Outcome Is Not Always Defined
Eval Rev, April 1, 2008; 32(2): 157 - 186.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
S. L. Ettner, J. Kotlerman, A. Afifi, S. Vazirani, R. D. Hays, M. Shapiro, and M. Cowan
An Alternative Approach to Reducing the Costs of Patient Care? A Controlled Trial of the Multi-Disciplinary Doctor-Nurse Practitioner (MDNP) Model.
Med Decis Making, January 1, 2006; 26(1): 9 - 17.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
P. L. Ellickson, J. S. Tucker, and D. J. Klein
Ten-Year Prospective Study of Public Health Problems Associated With Early Drinking
Pediatrics, May 1, 2003; 111(5): 949 - 955.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Natl Cancer Inst MonogrHome page
Integrating Economic Analysis Into Cancer Clinical Trials: the National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Economics Workbook
J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, August 1, 1998; 1998(24): 1 - 28.
[Full Text]